Stoned to death for adultery

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ers-forced-watch.html

One would have to be out of their mind, not to attach the word 'savages' to these individuals?

Today Somalia, 'tomorrow' who knows?

[Gromit]

ahmskunnirt

There have been several threads since where AOG uses the word 'savages' to describe black men who have committed a crime. It is usually agreed that the crimes are vicious, brutal, disgusting and the people that have done them are thoroughly bad people. However, the term 'savages' is quite an archaic term and some people are offended by it.

Extreme White supremacist Organisations like to use the word when talking about Africans
(see here http://www.stormfront...howthread.php?t=17943 ) .

AOG claims not to be a racist, but he talks like one.

[ummmm]

I don't think he does talk like a racist. I think he talks like a patriotic English man.

[Oneeyedvic]

Yes, a patriotic Englishman that blames all of lifes problems on dem coloured folk.

Look at the last 20, 50 or 100 posts that AOG has put in the news topic. See if you can spot a common theme?

[ummmm]

I have spotted a common theme.

[sp1814]

ahmskunnirt

I have a rubbish memory, but because AOG is so good at pointing out all that is wrong in anyone who has a skin tone any shade darker than David Dickinson*, that his missives become memorable.


(*Technically, the darkest a white person can be before they become an ethnic minority).

[Oneeyedvic]

Yes, I could ignore it, however I choose to confront ignorance and hypocrisy

Of course, if you don't like this, then you could equally boycott / ignore my responses.

Personally I dislike AOG (though I have on several occasions and I will reiterate now that I wouldn't want to see him banned as I believe in freedom of speech).

He has on several occasions decried modern society and said how he is never rude. I am (again) pointing out his hypocrisy when he is using terms that he has been told cause offence. This to me shows exactly what sort of person he is.

[sp1814]

ahmskunnirt

That's why AOG wrote "one would be out of their minds not to attach the word 'savages' etc". It's been a long running debate over the past year, with more plot twists than your average series of Dynasty.

[Gromit]

ahmskunnirt

AOG wears his racism with pride, and he seems to revel in the offence that the description initially caused. Like a naughty schoolboy who has a new naughty word, he uses it at every opportunity. Obviously if white thugs and criminals commit a horrid crime, the phrase is conspicuous by its absence.

//he calls them 'human filth', whereas I call them 'savages' //
anotheoldgit (Thu 12:36 10/Dec/09) http://www.theanswerb...s/Question838148.html

// I have referred to the perpetrators of "Gang Rape" as "SAVAGES" //
anotheoldgit (Mon 16:38 09/Nov/09) http://www.theanswerb...s/Question827525.html

//Looks like the three savages are in for a pretty hard time in prison//
anotheoldgit (Sat 17:59 13/Jun/09) http://www.theanswerb...s/Question769317.html

[keyplus90]

Jake – Condoms surely are not working then, are they?

Geezer – yet once again you have given a verdict without even reading my post properly. First of all I did not say that these people had 4 witnesses or anything like that. I just said what the requirement in the Islam was.

However as you have raised this point so are you sure that they did not have the witnesses or the person involved did not confess? How can you be so sure?

Or shall we say what few others have already said. Why do we have to decide how the others run their countries?

[keyplus90]

And please leave AOG alone as he/she posts so much that he/she looses track of what was typed.

[sp1814]

ahmskunnirt

Dynasty is one of the ten greatest programmes ever made. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd agree.

[birdie1971]

Keyplus -

I'd like to pick you up on an important point if I may. You state...

“Because of the seriousness of the punishment [for adultery] the requirement of proof is huge too, you need 4 witnesses”


So by your own admission, you need at least four witnesses in an adultery case. Correct?

Where did this rule come from? Oh yes, Mohammed – his favourite wife, Aisha, was accused of cheating (on her polygamous husband). Three witnesses corroborated the event, but Muhammad did not want to believe it, and so established the arbitrary rule that four witnesses are required.

So why then have you previously denied that Islamic law needs four witnesses to a adultery/rape case? (Note to none Muslims: Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. Ergo, you need four witness for both adultery or rape – the evidential “four witnesses” requirement is same in either case).

[birdie1971]

Continued...

Having an episode of amnesia are we Keyplus?

When I've previously commented on the “four witnesses” necessity under Islamic law, you've accused me of telling lies. Yet you now seem to accept that this is a fact.

And thanks to the wonders of modern technology, you and everyone else reading can see what you've had to say on this matter in May 2008...

http://www.theanswerb...2.html#answer-2745334